#18 - JRL 8088 - JRL Home
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004
From: Adam Wolf <adamwolf44@yahoo.ca>
Subject: response to article by Rev. Lapidus (Feb.
18th)/8072 [re: Russian Orthodox and Catholics]
Item 2 of the JRL #8072 of February 18th is a seeming attempt on the part of Rev. John Lapidus to provide the reader with a non biased and balanced analysis of the stand off between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church of Russia. Some of the points the author raises are valid. Most however are questionable and I would like to address these.
Rev. Lapidus highlights the Russian Orthodox Church’s concern regarding Catholic missionary activities in Russia and other CIS countries. He also makes reference to the Orthodox Church’s concern about the ongoing struggle between the Orthodox and the Greek Catholics of western Ukraine. The issue of the Catholic presence in the so-called “Russian Lands” is ever present in the mind of the Russian Orthodox hierarchy. The Orthodox Church considers the “Russian Lands”, which include all of Ukraine and Belarus to be its canonical territory. These lands should be off limits to Catholic influence. In its view these lands and the Slavic peoples inhabiting them, are Moscow’s geo-spiritual monopoly. The fact is that with the Union of Brest of 1596 a large part of the Ukrainian Church chose a different path, a path it has adhered to for over 400 years, a path it has every right to follow. There is no doubt that the act of Union was in large part the result of political rivalries between east and west. There is no doubt that power politics and manipulations played an important role. History has proven that ecclesiastical power politics have been a cutthroat business in both the Latin west and Byzantine east. Fundamentally though, this fact is of little consequence. If a large proportion of Ukrainian Christians feel strongly enough about their 400 year old Greek Catholic tradition to stand by it in the face of repression and persecution, no one has the moral or spiritual authority to disregard or denigrate this fact. The Uniate Church of Ukraine deserves both full recognition and full respect. I am always taken aback by the uncompromising tone of the Russian Orthodox Church, which seems unwilling to recognize and respect the freedom of Ukrainians to decide for themselves. Freedom of conscience is after all a universal right or is it?
Another issue, which the author raises is the Russian Orthodox Church’s concern about Catholic missionary activity in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Such concern would seem to indicate that the Russian Church sees itself as an imperial power. On what historical or theological grounds can the Orthodox Church of Russia assume the right to control the spirituality of the Kazakh, Uzbek, Kirgiz lands of Central Asia, which are today independent entities and whose traditions are neither Slavic nor Christian?
The author complains about the fact that Catholics are doing their own charitable work in Russia whereas they should be working hand in hand with their Orthodox brethren. Maybe he has a point here but social justice and charitable work as such do not seem to be a central priority of the Russian Orthodox establishment.
Then there is the issue of church seizures. Rev. Lapidus bemoans the fact that the Greek Catholic Church of Western Ukraine is seizing Orthodox churches. How can he, in all honesty, make such a statement without highlighting the fact that these seizures are a reaction to the brutal repression which the Uniate Church has been subjected to by both the tsarist and Bolshevik regimes ever since the partitions of Poland. Many Uniates preferred to suffer imprisonment and martyrdom rather then submit to conversion by decree. In more recent times, as a result of Western Ukraine’s (Eastern Poland’s) forced annexation by the USSR the Uniate Church was forcibly incorporated into the Moscow Patriarchate. Great numbers of lay people and clergy were sent to die in the GULAG for refusing to renounce their faith and allegiance. The Greek Catholics of Western Ukraine have proven beyond any doubt that their Church is more than the result of an imperial Polish whim. The Uniates have been practicing their own brand of Byzantine Christianity for over 400 years. The current conflict in Western Ukraine is unfortunate. One would hope that in the 21st century Christians would be capable of dealing with such issues in a more civilized manner. As sad and unfortunate as the situation is Rev. Lapidus is being intellectually dishonest when he condemns church seizures while failing to mention that, for the most part, these churches were seized from the Uniates in the first place. The picture he is presenting is biased and incomplete.
And finally the author illustrates with statistics in hand that the Catholic Church is a failing institution, a Church incapable of replenishing the ranks of its priesthood. On the other hand these same statistics would indicate that the Russian Orthodox Church is expanding exponentially. The ranks of the priesthood are growing. There are increasing numbers of parishes, seminaries, dioceses, and monasteries. If this remarkable expansion is real, one could logically expect that such newfound vitality should go a long way in neutralizing the sense of imminent Catholic danger among the Orthodox hierarchy. Catholics in Moscow number less than 100,000. Roman Catholic parishes are frequented primarily by descendants of Polish and German exiles, by refugees from the third world and by members of the diplomatic corps.
Articles such as the one by Rev. Lapidus do us all a disservice. Doubtless neither Church is without blame in this situation and both Churches are well versed in the sin of pride. Nevertheless when an author ventures into the mine-field of Catholic-Orthodox relations in Eastern Europe he should avoid presenting incomplete, distorted and one sided views. Such an approach is destructive. It fans the flames of resentment and makes meaningful dialogue impossible.